We are struggling to feed the world as it is, and if you look at scientists predictions for population explosion, it's only going to get worse. We should clone both livestock and crops. In theory it's safe, as the animal isn't going to have any new illness or chemicals in it that are unsafe for human consumption. It's not like a cloned item of food would be any more chemically/radioactively treated than a non-cloned item of food. Some people just feel weird about eating something that's come from a lab, I suppose. But there's no reason to.
And yea, maybe the animal would be born with more disorders, or die earlier, as we saw in Dolly the Sheep. But if the animal is going to be slaughtered anyway, and so long as the disease isn't harmful to humans, what does it matter?
If we cloned animals for food, we could feed the world population better. The clone is exactly the same as the original animal, so it is easier to clone an animal with tons of meat than try over to get something close. The FDA even approves of it so it should be safe too.
Slaughtering an animal, be it cloned or natural, involves an unbenevolent act on the part of the slaughterer, for pain and suffering is caused to a living organism that is capable of feeling such emotions. As such, it is neither virtuous nor ethical.
As for the ethics of the act of cloning itself, I wouldn't be against it. There are severe repercussions if we decide to clone humans because of the implications on human relationships (particularly familial ones) and on human society. Granted, animals also have *their* social structures, but I wouldn't say it's within our inherent moral obligations to preserve theirs, nor do I think cloning will have that significant an impact on them.
BTW, no, I highly doubt this will even come close to solving the problem of hunger. The primary causes of hunger these days is the uneven distribution of food internationally and nationally, and the disproportionate amount of resources dedicated to the less efficient livestock industry when, by the Ten Percent Law, they consume ten times as much energy as food crops. Technological progression aside, the answer to world hunger is a fairer international politicaleconomic system and a shift towards a more plant-based diet.
I don't see anything inherently immoral in cloning an animal. However, the more genetically similar a population of animals is, the more prone it is to diseases. As such, livestock has to be pumped full of antibiotics to survive to full growth. This is not a problem of the future, it's already happened. Strains of livestock have been heavily bred to put on muscle mass quickly for fast maturation, with little regard for other factors. Livestock in these situations live short lives in filthy, cramped cells. That is unethical.
I would however support vat-grown meat, such that no animal must be slaughtered. Assuming scientists one day figure out how to do this economically.
Even though clones are supposed to be identical, this is not always the case. Many clones have mutations and birth defects or die soon after birth. Even with this, the FDA has approved food products from clones. A big issue with this is that since the FDA says that clones are exactly the same as normal animals, they don't need labels saying that the food is from a clone.
Also, we shouldn't be able to play god. We're not only creating life, but we're using the clones to produce offspring for the market. It isn't right to create life to create more life to be killed.